Access real-time income statement data for public companies, private companies, and ETFs with the FMP Real-Time Income Statements API. Track profitability, compare competitors, and identify business trends with up-to-date financial data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Limit on number of results (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| period | No | Period (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, or FY) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as response format, pagination, data granularity, or potential latency. It only repeats that data is real-time/up-to-date, which is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence is somewhat generic marketing language but not overly verbose, so it earns a solid score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward with fully documented parameters, but the lack of output schema and minimal behavioral detail leaves room for ambiguity. It would be stronger if it mentioned how 'real-time' differs from other income statement APIs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about symbol, limit, or period beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides real-time income statement data for public/private companies and ETFs. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_income_statement or getIncomeStatementAsReported, though the 'real-time' qualifier offers some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for tracking profitability and comparing competitors, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other income statement endpoints. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.